Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[whocares]

Interesting comments by some US forum members - it seems that to some the rights of US Muslims are negotiable - US Muslims it seems some argue here, need some sort of approval by some other US citizens who imagine that they can eexercise a veto or that a tribute must be made to them, in order for US Muslims to exercise their rights, and some who seem proponents of this line of reasoning, want to equate the actions of the Al-Qaida with those of All Muslims, particularoly Muslims in the US - that simply should not be and so far is not, something acceptable to US Muslims - the US government goes around the world claiming it's actions ought not be construed as war against Islam or Muslims, yet it seems some of it's own citizenry and politicians do not believe the US government, for they insist that the actionsof the Al-Qaida OUGHT to be equated as those of All Muslims.

Some have argued that it is the equivalent of the Japanese erecting a Temple in honor of it's war dead - Again, note that the actions of the Al-Qaida is something that all US Muslims MUST, and OUGHT to be held accountable for - exactly why and how, is something that proponents of this line of reasoning have not as yet felt compelled to explain - however, these people have had a positive impact, in the sense that they have had the effect of awakening many US Muslims to the insidious nature of the threat they face to their liberties in the US - of course, we wish them well, in their struggle.

We had argued that the great hope in the US is not it's government nor it's organizations but the common decency of it's populace - events have picked up a speed thaty will make for confusing deliberation and US muslims seem to realize that it's not just their struggle, it's a struggle the entire US seems to depend on US Muslims to carry forward. The security consolidation in US government, the defensive posture of it's judiciary, the fragility of it's economy, the willingness to imagine that all US citizens can be made un-equal, pose a danger to the integrity of the US and for it's moral position at home and abroad, US Muslims it seems have to shoulder the responsibility for all US - again, we of course, wish them well, in their struggle to not only secure themselves but all US citizens.

i agree with some of what you say but the last paragraph is somewhat hyperbolic. the US muslims have to struggle for the integrity of the US social fabric, government, security, judiciary and economy. really?

i hope you are not one of those idealists who think that american muslims have answers to all these questions or anything positive to contribute by the sheer fact of being muslim.

maybe i've misunderstood what you're trying to say.

 

[muse]

US muslims have to struggle for the integrity of the US social fabric, government, security, judiciary and economy. really?

Yes, it seems to me. Let me explain this a bit further, at least from my point of view - I think the US has changed in very dangerous ways since 9/11 -- An entire security apparatus has been consolidated, Americans feel more vulnerable, the financial crisis has added fuel to the fire -- if you go by Pew and Gallup, you will find that after 9/11 it was not the citizenry but the government that created the Muslim and Islam as the adversary in the public perception - and in the light of the fact that there is even a debate about so ordinary a thing as a private building, owned by private individuals, to be funded by enbtites other than the US government, is itself rather shocking and dangerous.

Now US Muslims, by struggling to secure themselves and their rights as citizens, do a giant service for the rest of the US, because either all citizens are free to exercise their rights or none are - today it's US muslims, tomorrow it will be another group or segment of society that will be made an easy target if US Muslims fail to rise ot the challenge to their liberties.

I had posted an editorial from the Idan paper "Hindu" which broadly highlighted the concerns I am raising here, the point I was maing was that society in the US seems to have gotten it's moral compass all messed up - so few voices have been raised against the attitudes expressed publically by Us political and religious talking heads that people simply take it for granted that Muslims ought to be bashed in the US, because, well, they are Muslims and Al-Qaida is Muslims and we fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are all Muslims and these Pakistines won't help us, they take our money and thumb their noses at us - in other words an entire rationalization of a much larger civilizational conflict - in my opinion Al-Qaida did not imflict on the US anywhere near the damage she inflict on herself by not thinking through her problems - Anyways, the point is yes, indeed, I do think it's a rather a serious matter and I hope that Us Muslims will avoid organizations that seek to make deals and instead choose courts to seek redress - The US was known as a country of laws, now it is the responsibilty of US Muslims to continue to seek redress in the law and to ensure that the methods of public learning, that is to say, make it cost $$$, are applied -- See, no one isaying that you have to change what you think or feel in your heart towards US Muslims, but when you make bigotry public you should bear a cost or else bigotry will no longer be bigotry but rather business as usual.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I couldn't follow your argument at all here.

I'm saying that most of the Pakistanis being critical of the views in the US (opposing the mosque) are also critical of social attitudes and policies in Pakistan that tend to vilify and discriminate against minorities.

Point being that Tang0's argument of Pakistanis 'being careful about criticizing the US because Pakistan as issues as well' is IMO not applicable given that many of us are very critical of things in Pakistan.

 

[gambit]

And yet there are plenty of Japanese groups of tourists at the Arizona memorial, and plenty of US tourists at the Hiroshima peace park. I have been to both and seen it.

So have I. Japanese tourists are not shrines.

There are plenty of Japanese/Asian American community centers spread about Hawaii as well....

I grew up in Hawaii. Took flying lessons in high school and often flew over the Arizona Memorial. Those community centers are either not Japan centric or anything involving Japan are only for historical references as Hawaii is the middle between Japan and mainland America. No one from Japan or any Hawaiian Japanese-American will lobby to build a shrine honoring Japanese WW II war dead or anything similar in intention near the Arizona Memorial. Neither the US nor State of Hawaii government forces the locals to any wishes. This is an understanding based upon sensitivity, basic decency and respect, even though Japanese-Americans more than proved their loyalty in WW II.

Although, no such luck in Hiroshima, unless wait....You count the GIANT baseball stadium right next to the peace park...If there was every a symbol of US culture, there it is....

That is the view from the other side of the road outside the stadium...

So was baseball imposed upon the Japanese?

I am going to say that you get a fail card for your analogy. Both Japan and the US are over the differences of their former governments, people need to drop their grudge against Islam.

And I am going to give you an 'F' for your argument. How long did it took for both nations to 'get over' WW II? Grudge against Islam? More hyperboles? How long did this 'grudge' last? Since 2001? Since 1945, there has been nothing from Japan on US and Japan became a stable US ally in many ways. Since 2001, how many incidences involving muslims in the US that ended in tragedies? Sgt. Hasan Akbar and Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

 

[gambit]

There is no question of 'taste, decency, sensitivity or respect for history' here. These are all canards dredged up to somehow imply that American Muslims, Muslims in general and Islam bear responsibility for the 911 attacks. For any Muslim to accept these position is to accept culpability in the 911 attacks, and that is precisely the purpose behind these disingenuous arguments.

American Muslims did not condone the 911 attacks, they did not support them and the founders of this mosque have not condoned them. Since Muslims, both American and as a worldwide body, had no role in supporting or condoning the 911 attacks, constructing a mosque next to Ground Zero has no negative connotations, except in the fevered minds of bigots.

These bigots will never be satisfied - first it was demands of 'condemnation and protest', that happened, then it was demands of 'not enough condemnation and protests', now it is 'no mosque 3 blocks from Ground Zero' next it will be 'no mosque ten blocks from Ground Zero'. The probably 'no minarets on mosques', and who knows, then they'll want to revise the Quran because of how they perceive and interpret it (an interpretation they share with Islamic terrorists and extremists).

There is nothing 'virtuous' in conceding to hatemongers and bigots, and the fear and loathing they generate against communities and peoples they despise irrationally. In fact to concede to the demands of such people will be the 'unvirtuous' act. This proposed mosque is decent, is respectful of history, is tasteful, is 'virtuous' and is not insensitive except to bigots.

Really? Sensitivity, basic decency and respect are canards? The Pentagon is 'Ground Zero' for the American military and there is a mosque -- IN THE PENTAGON -- managed by Chaplain Lt. Cmd. Abuhena M. Saifulislam.

USMilitary.com - Headline News

Newly promoted Navy Lt. Cmdr. Abuhena M. Saifulislam had always wanted to serve Islam, even as a young boy growing up in Bangladesh.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England promoted Saifulislam during a Sept. 11 Pentagon ceremony.

Virtues that you called 'canards' are exchanged both ways here. No one called for the Chaplain to stop conducting his services, especially when parts of those services are conducted in Arabic. No one called for the closure of this mosque. And no members of this mosque asked for the extension of the facility. If they had, the American military establishment, out of concern for appearances that could be construed as 'bigotry', would have granted the expansion request. Keep in mind that there are enough generals and admirals in the Pentagon that full colonels and Navy captains are coffee servers and chart turners. The expansion request would have been granted, construction expedited and considerable media fanfare would have been made. Yes...The American military leadership can exercise its authority to either shut down the Pentagon mosque, or order its expansion, or suppress any dissent to its presence by any US military member, high or low rank. But nothing to that effect happened. Why? Because in that smaller community both sides exercised the virtues that you sneered as 'canards'.

New York City could have exercised its authority and enact some emergency laws that would ban any new constructions by any religious organization. That did not happened. Just as the military closed no religious facilities under its jurisdiction despite what happened to its most important symbol, no one in the American civilian leadership called for the closure of existing mosques anywhere in the country so the decent thing to do -- for now -- is to preserve the social status quo regarding Islam, muslims and the average American infidels. Leave the immediate area around the civilian Ground Zero alone. With this proposed mosque in NYC so close to the civilian Ground Zero, Americans will respect the rule of law to allow its construction and eventually the issue will go away. But the civilians will remember and will see this as a sign that among the American muslim community, it is virtuous to take advantage of the infidels whenever an opportunity presented itself. That 'slippery slope' you speculated was reached long ago among the European countries and without their versions of 9/11. The construction of this mosque so close to Ground Zero WILL be a move towards that 'slippery slope' in America.

===

America at large never thought much about Islam before 9/11.

That is not a justification for the current wave of opinion amongst some American circles based on bigotry and vilification of a an entire community that did not condone or support the 9/11 attacks.

Really? It is precisely because Americans never gave much thought to Islam that we now put Islam under the same social scrutiny as we have done for decades to Christianity. So yes...Our deliberate ignorance before is justification for that examination. Any negative opinions about this community is part of that examination, so are any counter arguments.

===

Right...You demand that we accept that the US is partly to blame for 9/11, but you also demand that we disregard the fact that Islam and muslims were involved.

Yes - because US policy is a deliberately formulated tool to achieve certain goals, and that deliberately formulated policy has repercussions, good and bad. OBL himself directly benefited from aspects of American Foreign Policy, as did Jalalludin Haqqani, whose insurgent network is now considered the most dangerous by the US. The American Muslims community and Islam did not authorize OBL or AQ to do anything on their behalf. We did not, as a community or a religion, grant them any authority, nor did we formulate any policy that resulted in what the actions OBL took - that honor, again, falls on the US.

The issue here is Islam and how much of the religion motivated and justified any action by any member of the religion. When a muslim does a 'good' deed, does the community disavow his 'good' deed the way you disavow OBL just now? Many muslims, inside and outside of America, do consider the 9/11 attacks as 'good' deeds done by 'good' muslims. Who are you to speak on their behalf?

Muslims are no different than any other believers of any other religion in that the 'good' deed should be and was done under the command of his religion. It was Muhammad, not Jesus and certainly not from any Jewish figure, that set the example for so-and-so action. If a country has a 'foreign policy', meaning on how to deal with those with different ideological and political inclinations, so does any religion to have a 'non-believer policy', meaning how to deal with someone who may toss you to the lions for his entertainment or treat you to a fine homecook meal while he entertain you. Osama bin Laden took justifications for his 'non-believer policy', not from the Christian Bible or from the Egyptian Book of the Dead or from the Kama Sutra, but from the Quran and Islamic thought processes. State sponsored 'foreign policy' can change from one regime to the next and those changes are accepted as normal. God sponsored 'non-believer policy', aka religious laws, are supposed to be immune from the vagaries of human desires, no?

Absent a figure who can speak for the muslim community worldwide, anyone can claim to act on behalf of Islam and the muslim community and there is NOTHING you can do to prevent him from taking that authority. Like I pointed out earlier, bin Laden did not act on behalf of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia but on defense of 'the muslims'. He care for Afghanistan only to the extent that the land offer him a base from which he can live and fight for 'the muslims'. If not this Osama bin Laden, then it WILL be another like him. He has followers willing to die for him and that degree of devotion give him the moral authority to act as as long as there are followers.

Bottom line is this: If America's ideology, politics and economic interests form the foundation for US foreign policy that create consequences, then for the sake of intellectual honesty, we cannot dismiss Islam and the Quran as the motivations and justifications for any action and if said action create consequences.

===

That is fine with me and most of America. If you are willing to let extremists 'hijack' Islam in America, you have no cause to complain if we form our own perception of Islam and muslims.

You are entitled to form whatever opinions you want, but I will speak for myself and my beliefs and my Islam, when I feel like it. I am not anymore responsible for what what an Islamic extremist believes/does than I am for what a Catholic priest raping Children believes/does.

Oh yes you do. More than you like. Ever used or read of the phrase 'the Ugly American'? We Americans are expected to live up to the standards we professed to believe in. We Americans stateside are expected to even be embarrassed by the ugly behaviors some of us displayed overseas. I myself have been on the receiving ends of many disgusted looks from Brits, Frenchmen, Spaniards, Italians and others even though I have done nothing wrong. Like it or not, shared beliefs mean shared shame whenever some of those beliefs are betrayed. The whole Catholic clergy class suffered that shared shame even though only one or a few of them are legally convicted of moral outrages against children. The difference here is that morally wayward priests know they are in the wrong, hence none ever glorified their actions. For the 9/11 terrorists, they do not believe they were in the wrong. They glorified Allah in the same way you would when they attacked US and many muslims exalted their deeds. Shared beliefs equal to shared glory, no?

 

[gambit]

Nope...But if US foreign policies and support for Israel should be considered when discussing terrorism that involved a certain religion, then why the evasion about Islam and its influence?

Well, because most people are not Islamic scholars. You yourself refuse to debate Islam on this site because you know it would degenerate into either quote wars or cherry picking information. Debating theology is difficult at best. Meanwhile debating foreign policy is directly relevant to terrorism, especially since the War on Terror and wars in general are foreign policy.

As for me, the only reason why I do not enter any discussion on the minutae of Islam HERE is because it is from my experience on muslim forums that sooner or later the administrative hammer would fall upon the American under some stretched interpretations of the forum's rules that he allegedly violated. Am treading the line as it is with this issue. Over at bismikaallahuma I challenged a member of the admin staff, a character named PrinceZED, on his belief in geocentrism. He claimed to have graduated with top honors from one of Britain's top university in chemistry and physics. And he believes that the universe revolves around the Earth. After a few rounds of debate the hammer felled and my account was suspended. This is a military issues oriented forum and to this day am still surprised that I lasted here as long as I have considering how much I debunked popular but false beliefs about some of these military issues.

As for 'cherry picking information', most Americans do not know enough about the religion of the house of worship they attend on Sundays, let alone of Islam, to do any 'cherry picking' of the Quran. If you browse the discussions enough, the muslims are no different from the Christians in cherry picking the Quran to debate over any issue they find contentious. Even 'Some assembly required' furniture instructions are more clear than religious texts. So for post-9/11 America, curious Americans naturally will focus their attention on the muslims who cherry picked the Quran to justify the attack on US or to after the fact defend the same. Give to charity is expected and no one with any religious background would need to cherry pick another's religious background to see if that benevolent commandment exists. Same for respect your elders. But to commit violence? Absolutely we, believers and non-believers, need to comb through the religious scriptures to find and interpret, or 'gin up', some justifications.

Besides, you must know the history of Al Qaeda. You must also know that Bin Laden's movement was running on fumes until the early 90's, and he adopted his anti-American stance as life support to garner more recruits. Only then did his ranks swell. This anti-Americanism which revived Bin Laden's movement was not based on Islam, but simmering hatred of (perceived) American influence in the region. Whether that influence was justified or not I will not debate, but here is the basic fact -- even if Islam didn't exist, merely by playing on hatred of Americans Bin Laden could have gotten his recruits. Remember, the 9/11 hijackers didn't know they were going to the afterlife with 72 virgins and Bin Laden even laughed at them. Even if the concept of jihad didn't exist, Bin Laden would have found some way to manipulate people to his ends. Al Qaeda's modus operandi isn't low impact attacks like bus bombers, but high profile specatular attacks and that doesn't require an army of recruits, only a few dozen to a few hundreds at most. The Al Qaeda wannabes might not exist without Islam, but there would still be a Bin Laden type who absolutely hates Westerners and what we represent.

They are like railroad tracks. Without one rail this anti-America train would not run. Granted, there are plenty of historical and current examples that religion is redundant when it come to formulating a hatred for America. Chavez of Venezuela is the current. But Islam, or the perceived threat to Islam, was a major motivator for recruitment when it was the Soviets who invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Look at it this way. One wheel is difficult enough of a ride. Putting one wheel ahead of another make for a better transport. Pairing the two wheels, politics and religion, side-by-side and you have the best for stability and cargo load. We can remove the rifle from the muslim soldier's hands but we cannot remove Islam from his heart nor is it our intention anyway. So now it begs the question of whose moral responsibility is it to exorcise any and all distortions of the specifics of Islam that would motivate a muslim to rally to the likes of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which then begs the question of who is to decide what is a 'distortion' and what is not.

 

[gambit]

Interesting comments by some US forum members - it seems that to some the rights of US Muslims are negotiable - US Muslims it seems some argue here, need some sort of approval by some other US citizens who imagine that they can eexercise a veto or that a tribute must be made to them, in order for US Muslims to exercise their rights, and some who seem proponents of this line of reasoning, want to equate the actions of the Al-Qaida with those of All Muslims, particularoly Muslims in the US - that simply should not be and so far is not, something acceptable to US Muslims - the US government goes around the world claiming it's actions ought not be construed as war against Islam or Muslims, yet it seems some of it's own citizenry and politicians do not believe the US government, for they insist that the actionsof the Al-Qaida OUGHT to be equated as those of All Muslims.

Some have argued that it is the equivalent of the Japanese erecting a Temple in honor of it's war dead - Again, note that the actions of the Al-Qaida is something that all US Muslims MUST, and OUGHT to be held accountable for - exactly why and how, is something that proponents of this line of reasoning have not as yet felt compelled to explain - however, these people have had a positive impact, in the sense that they have had the effect of awakening many US Muslims to the insidious nature of the threat they face to their liberties in the US - of course, we wish them well, in their struggle.

We had argued that the great hope in the US is not it's government nor it's organizations but the common decency of it's populace - events have picked up a speed thaty will make for confusing deliberation and US muslims seem to realize that it's not just their struggle, it's a struggle the entire US seems to depend on US Muslims to carry forward. The security consolidation in US government, the defensive posture of it's judiciary, the fragility of it's economy, the willingness to imagine that all US citizens can be made un-equal, pose a danger to the integrity of the US and for it's moral position at home and abroad, US Muslims it seems have to shoulder the responsibility for all US - again, we of course, wish them well, in their struggle to not only secure themselves but all US citizens.

Nice...But before we can take this seriously, can you give us infidels a list of liberties that American muslims have lost so far? Or is the objection to this proposed mosque another gross exaggeration to become that insidious threat to the liberties of all? Keep in mind that we approaches the ten-yr anniversary of that attack on US.

All rights are negotiable and at the very least their reach, if not their endowment, that are constantly under negotiations. So give us a list of institutionalized restraints upon American muslims for the last decade, something like different drinking fountains, rear seatings on public transportation, higher interest rates on loans, etc...etc...In other words, a list of restrictions that America have dredged up from its less enlightened past that are still easily enough imposed via legislations and enforcement.

In New Jersey, Judge Joseph Charles denied a Morrocan muslimah a restraining order against her (ex)husband who insisted that she concede to sex at his convenience. The muslimah charged that her (ex)husband forced himself upon her whenever she refused. The judge judged that whenver her (ex)husband did forced himself upon her, it was not with malice but with full allowance of Islamic laws regarding husband-wife relations. No malice so no restraining order.

State court throws out religion as defense in case involving husband's non-consensual sex with wife - NJ.com

But in his ruling, Charles, a former assemblyman and state senator, said he did not feel the husband "had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault . He was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was consistent with his practices and was something that was not prohibited."

In America, regardless of one's religious affiliation, marital rape is a crime. But in this case, American law regarding marital rape is cast aside because apparently the judge placed a higher value of Islamic justifications over secular reasoning. Her (ex)husband finally is under criminal charges but it is clear to all that initially, the woman's secular rights, as believed by Americans, were effectively negotiated away in favor of Islamic rights.

Remember what you said: "...the common decency of it's populace..." So whose sense of 'decency' should trumps whose if a muslim cab driver refuse a blind client with a service dog? Where are the evidences of enough the erosion of that 'common decency' that American muslims must live in abject terror for nearly ten yrs? CAIR in America is no amateur in the Congressional lobbying dept and they certainly could not come up with such a list else the liberal NY Times would be all over that list. Perhaps you can do better from waaaayyyy over there?

 

[Awesome]

No one in Japan is pushing for any kind of shrine or 'community center' near the Arizona Memorial. This is about sensitivity, basic decency and respect. May be the US should build a 'memorial' in Baghdad in remembrance of American deaths. We can include Iraqi soldiers as well if the local protests are loud enough.

That means you hold Islam and all Muslims responsible. Ban out being a Muslim in America and you will have some legal grounds to justify what you want.

Maybe as a rule on every airport you should have everybody testify "La Allah, La Muhammad" before somebody steps on US soil.

Or you can accept that the Muslim world didn't kill your people like a normal person. Because its the Muslim's country too.

 

[Solomon2]

That means you hold Islam and all Muslims responsible.

Am i right that you have no sense of shame that militants waved the banner of Islam to justify murdering 3,000 people?

 

[karan.1970]

How is it a banner's (Islam's) fault that some idiots waved it before committing murder. Didnt Ku Klux Clan wave crosses...??? That didnt make me hate churches or Christians. Being a Hindu, I still celebrate X-Mas.

We need to get out of this over generalization.

 

[whocares]

That means you hold Islam and all Muslims responsible. Ban out being a Muslim in America and you will have some legal grounds to justify what you want.

Maybe as a rule on every airport you should have everybody testify "La Allah, La Muhammad" before somebody steps on US soil.

Or you can accept that the Muslim world didn't kill your people like a normal person. Because its the Muslim's country too.

Islam as a belief system was 'causally instrumental', since one can't assign responsibility to a system of beliefs as it is not an agent on its own.
I already pointed out the particular feature of islam that helps acts of self righteous organized / personal / vigilante violence. And that is the idea that some kinds of violence are righteous and lead to heaven, and such carrying out such violence is a personal responsibility if the conditions are met. I know that there is debate to the conditions under which violence is to be used etc.

I don't think any other religion barring maybe judaism (not sure) has this idea.

All muslims are not responsible as some kind of collective agent, thats an absurd idea. But islam as a system of beliefs isn't benign.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Really? Sensitivity, basic decency and respect are canards? The Pentagon is 'Ground Zero' for the American military and there is a mosque -- IN THE PENTAGON -- managed by Chaplain Lt. Cmd. Abuhena M. Saifulislam.

USMilitary.com - Headline News

Don't distort my comments - I did not call the 'virtues' canards, I called your attempt to suggest the proposed construction of the NYC mosque a 'violation of those virtues' a canard. Yours is a disingenuous argument based around a strawman, that seeks to irrationally vilify a community on the issue of constructing a house of worship, and on the other hand makes the community accept culpability in a terrorist attack that they had no hand in if they accept your argument.

Your example of the mosque in the Pentagon in fact justifies my position, that the presence of a mosque near ground zero is nothing that you claim it is.

But the civilians will remember and will see this as a sign that among the American muslim community, it is virtuous to take advantage of the infidels whenever an opportunity presented itself. That 'slippery slope' you speculated was reached long ago among the European countries and without their versions of 9/11. The construction of this mosque so close to Ground Zero WILL be a move towards that 'slippery slope' in America.

The 'slippery slope' will always be something bigots and hatemongers will seek to advance, the construction of a mosque will have little to do with it. If not the NYC mosque, it will be something else, as has been the case in Europe, with one country banning minarets out of the blue.

In fact your entire argument hear is a pathetic attempt at a 'threatening' Muslims, by suggesting that if they dare to practice their religion freely, Americans will treat them with extreme prejudice.

Really? It is precisely because Americans never gave much thought to Islam that we now put Islam under the same social scrutiny as we have done for decades to Christianity. So yes...Our deliberate ignorance before is justification for that examination. Any negative opinions about this community is part of that examination, so are any counter arguments.

America has not put Christianity or Christians under social scrutiny, it has put certain schools of Christian thought and certain Churches preaching a perceived extremist message under 'some' scrutiny. On the other hand the approach by people like you towards Muslims and Islam is to put the entire faith and the entire community under scrutiny, regardless of their theological interpretations and actions.

Your attitude and that of those opposing the proposed NYC mosque is a perfect example of that. The 'scrutiny' of this mosque and Muslims is not because the Imam suggested 'Katrina occurred because of Homosexuality' or because his disciples 'rape children' or because a significant number of his congregants have 'trained to become terrorists', but only because the Mosque represents the presence of Islam and Muslims.

So your sudden 'focus' on Islam and Muslims has nothing in common with this so called 'scrutiny of Christians by Americans'. Scrutiny must be based on actual deeds and words, not on derogatory generalizations and stereotypes that feed your insecurity and prejudices against a particular community.

The issue here is Islam and how much of the religion motivated and justified any action by any member of the religion. When a muslim does a 'good' deed, does the community disavow his 'good' deed the way you disavow OBL just now? Many muslims, inside and outside of America, do consider the 9/11 attacks as 'good' deeds done by 'good' muslims. Who are you to speak on their behalf?

The religion motivated no one - extremists choose to distort it to justify their political and social goals. Most mosques in the US that largely preach the opposite are in fact the counter argument. I certainly don't go around claiming the good deeds of all Muslims, and who are you to decide how many Muslims did what and that the majority in the US, or even a significant minority, support what happened on 9/11?

You have constructed yet another dishonest statement about the attitudes and opinions of Muslims in the US. At the least one would expect you to provide some empirical evidence to substantiate a claim that ANY number of American Muslims support XYZ issue, especially slanderous claims such as supporting terrorism.

Muslims are no different than any other believers of any other religion in that the 'good' deed should be and was done under the command of his religion. It was Muhammad, not Jesus and certainly not from any Jewish figure, that set the example for so-and-so action. If a country has a 'foreign policy', meaning on how to deal with those with different ideological and political inclinations, so does any religion to have a 'non-believer policy', meaning how to deal with someone who may toss you to the lions for his entertainment or treat you to a fine homecook meal while he entertain you. Osama bin Laden took justifications for his 'non-believer policy', not from the Christian Bible or from the Egyptian Book of the Dead or from the Kama Sutra, but from the Quran and Islamic thought processes. State sponsored 'foreign policy' can change from one regime to the next and those changes are accepted as normal. God sponsored 'non-believer policy', aka religious laws, are supposed to be immune from the vagaries of human desires, no?

Most religions claim 'good deeds' because that is what the purported aim of religion is. That in fact validates my point about Islam and Muslims having no responsibility for AQ or OBL's actions since those actions reflect nothing of what the Islam we believe in preaches.

If some loony reads Dr. Seus and goes out to commit mass murder, books the 'grinch told him so' that does not make Seus culpable.

Absent a figure who can speak for the muslim community worldwide, anyone can claim to act on behalf of Islam and the muslim community and there is NOTHING you can do to prevent him from taking that authority. Like I pointed out earlier, bin Laden did not act on behalf of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia but on defense of 'the muslims'. He care for Afghanistan only to the extent that the land offer him a base from which he can live and fight for 'the muslims'. If not this Osama bin Laden, then it WILL be another like him. He has followers willing to die for him and that degree of devotion give him the moral authority to act as as long as there are followers.

Absent a global Islamic leader, individual Islamic organizations, mosques, scholars and individuals speak for themselves, and in the US that message is clear except for those who cannot see beyond their prejudice. If a nut case wants to distort the religion and blow himself up, that is not my responsibility, nor of all Muslims and Islam. We have no control over an individual's mind.

Bottom line is this: If America's ideology, politics and economic interests form the foundation for US foreign policy that create consequences, then for the sake of intellectual honesty, we cannot dismiss Islam and the Quran as the motivations and justifications for any action and if said action create consequences.

American policy is for the most part clear and unambiguous - you choose to go to war, you choose to support occupation, dislocation of millions and ambivalence towards settlements. There is little to quibble about. Religion however, for most of us who do not subscribe to terrorism and extremism, is clear in that attacks on civilians and oppression are not acceptable. When an individual choose to distort religion and do the opposite of what many Muslims believe, it is not our responsibility - we certainly never promoted that interpretation of Islam or authorized those actions, and we do not have control over the minds of every individual out there.

Oh yes you do. More than you like. Ever used or read of the phrase 'the Ugly American'?

Yes - it is a generalization and a stereotype, largely based on global perceptions of US foreign policy, a tool to advance US interests deliberately formulated by the State. It impacts all Americans, Muslims and non-Muslim, because of their citizenship and the unambiguous policies of their nation. There are many Americans who are strong critics of American policy, and they too are lumped in with the rest, which is wrong.

One wrong does not justify another - you apparently revel in that sort of pejudice and stereotyping since you choose to apply the same to another community after 'suffering' through it yourself.

The whole Catholic clergy class suffered that shared shame even though only one or a few of them are legally convicted of moral outrages against children.

They suffered because they are part of an institution, and because of the perceptions that the Catholic Church was covering up, and because of the number of people in similar positions within that institution committing reprehensible acts.

The difference here is that morally wayward priests know they are in the wrong, hence none ever glorified their actions. For the 9/11 terrorists, they do not believe they were in the wrong. They glorified Allah in the same way you would when they attacked US and many muslims exalted their deeds. Shared beliefs equal to shared glory, no?

Yes, and mainstream Islam and Muslims do not condone or interpret their faith like OBL and AQ, and therefore have no responsibility for them.

We are Muslims - they are Al Qaeda and terrorists.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Am i right that you have no sense of shame that militants waved the banner of Islam to justify murdering 3,000 people?

Why should we have any sense of remorse or shame over the fact that some nutcase chose to distort Islam and commit acts that none of us condone?

Muslims and Islam are not responsible for every loony out there who chooses to wave an 'Islam banner'.

 

[sparklingway]

The headlines:-

Cordoba Centre allowed :- Look we told you we have the greatest religion, nothing can stop us !

Cordoba Centre not-allowed :- Islamophobic discriminatory amriki !

Head I Win, Tails You Lose

 

[forcetrip]

Am i right that you have no sense of shame that militants waved the banner of Islam to justify murdering 3,000 people?

They had been killing way more than 3000 people before and killed way more after. The people that killed your 3000 are more like your white hooded friends. In the case of the KKK, no super power was sending Hercules full of weapons and money and then leaving them with a country full of nothing to fight over what little was left.

The Soviets were invited by the then present government, the Russians were "supposedly" there to bring stability to the country. Now they are at super power #2 with the exact same M.O.